Will John. Temple

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 23, 2020

14539977 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/539,977 11/12/2014 Will John Temple 4063
7590 03/23/2020
Will Temple
PO Box 1993
Placerville, CA 95667
EXAMINER
BOLOTIN, DMITRIY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILL JOHN TEMPLE
____________

Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 51–57.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant, appearing pro se, identifies the real party in
interest as Will John Temple, the inventor. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–20 have been canceled and claims 21–50 and 58 have been
withdrawn from consideration subsequent to an election filed August 12,
2016, in response to a Restriction Requirement, mailed June 16, 2016.
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosure is directed “to user interfaces of computing
devices and mobile electronic devices, and more particularly, to computing
devices and mobile electronic devices that interpret user presses, releases,
and motions of buttons, keys, or touch screen objects to determine device
commands.” Spec. 1.
Claims 51 and 52 are illustrative of the invention and read as follows:
51. A computer implemented method for enabling a
user to interact with an electronic device through one or more
multidirectional buttons, wherein the multidirectional buttons
are not keys in a keyboard, the method comprising:
a. receiving one or more signals associated with one or
more user presses on a top surface of the multidirectional
button;
b. determining some initial positions of the user presses;
c. determining one or more motion thresholds from the
determined initial positions of the user presses, wherein the
motion thresholds comprising some thresholds of displacement
or thresholds of force;
d. receiving some motion signals associated with some
lateral user press motions, wherein the press motions are
substantially within a plane generally coincident to the top
surface of the multidirectional button;
e. detecting if the lateral press motions exceed the one or
more motion thresholds;
f. determining one or more directions of the lateral press
motions from the determined initial positions of the user presses
and the motion signals;
g. detecting one or more release signals associated with
the user releasing the user presses of the multidirectional
button;
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

3
h. determining a command for the device from a
plurality of command choices, wherein the command is
determined from the detections and determinations of the
method comprising the detections of the press motions
exceeding the motion thresholds and/or the directions of the
lateral press motions, wherein a plurality of the command
choices comprise commands for the device exclusive from
scrolling and dragging objects on a display screen, and wherein
one of the plurality of command choices is a center choice
exclusive from the use of opening or closing the
multidirectional button, wherein the center choice is the
determined command if the release of the user press has been
detected with the lateral press motions having not exceeded the
one or more motion thresholds;
i. inputting the command to the device;
whereby the user may quickly and reliably choose from
the plurality of command choices within one press and release
of each of the multidirectional buttons.
52. The method of claim 51, wherein one or more of
the commands of the multidirectional button comprise a
command to unlock the device and go directly to a function.
Appeal Br. 17–18 (Claims App.).
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

4
Name Reference Date
Steiner et al. (“Steiner”) US 2008/0158024 A1 July 3, 2008
Mouilleseaux et al.
(“Mouilleseaux”) US 2009/0327964 A1 Dec. 31, 2009
Temple US 2011/0285651 Al Nov. 24, 2011
LeBeau et al. (“LeBeau”) US 2012/0036556 A1 Feb. 9, 2012

The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 51 and 57 stand rejected pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Temple. Final Act. 3–4.
Claims 51 and 54–56 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mouilleseaux and Steiner. Final Act. 5–8.
Claims 52 and 53 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and LeBeau. Final Act. 8–9.
Related Appeals
Although Appellant does not identify any related appeals, Application
13/068,817, which is to the same inventor, is a related appeal.3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments (Final Act. 3–9; Appeal Br. 5–12; Reply Br. 1–9) that the
Examiner has erred, but we disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. The
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response, supported by sufficient
evidence, to each of the contentions raised by Appellant. See Ans. 2–10.
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by

3 Application 13/068,817 is appealed under Appeal Number 2018-004757.
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

5
the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief (id.). We highlight the following points for emphasis.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102
Because Appellant does not contest the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection in the Appeal Brief as the Examiner indicates (Final Act. 3–4), we
summarily sustain that rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018) (“If a ground
of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board
may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner’s answer.”).
Accordingly, we summarily sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
51 and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) (pre-AIA).
REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
Appellant focuses the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief on the
rejection of claim 52 over the combination of Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and
LeBeau. We select claim 52 as representative claim because Appellant does
not separately argue any other claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv)
(2016).
Discussion
First Argument
Appellant contends the Examiner’s reliance on LeBeau as disclosing a
method “wherein one or more of the commands of the multidirectional
button comprise a command to unlock the device and go directly to a
function” is in error. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant refers to paragraph 2 of
LeBeau and argues:
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

6
This method of Le Beau requires three basic steps. First,
the user has to press on an icon at the top of the screen.
Second, the user has to drag over a second icon some distance
from the first icon. And third, the user has to release the
press/touch over the second icon. Each icon, which is a user
interface object, has one use. The multidirectional buttons of
the present claim have a plurality of commands, and thus, more
than one use. LeBeau does not, in fact, disclose these
commands and operations comprised in a multidirectional
button, as the Examiner has stated.
Appeal Br. 6. Additionally, Appellant argues the disclosure in paragraph 52
of LeBeau provides a second method of unlocking the device as follows:
Compared to the previous method of LeBeau, this method of
LeBeau requires the additional step of a second drag. By
contrast, the present invention removes steps and element from
the methods of Le Beau. In the present invention, the user may
unlock the device and go directly to a function by simply
pressing a button and then moving the press (equivalent to the
term “drag” used in LeBeau) past a small threshold. The user
does not have to locate and drag over a second (or third) icon
before releasing. This step is removed. Further, the element of
a second icon does not exist in the present invention, as it is not
needed. Dragging over a second icon requires more precision,
and more distance. A user of the present invention may more
expediently unlock the device and go directly to a function.
Elimination of steps without loss of function is objective indicia
and evidence of nonobviousness.
Id.
In response, the Examiner explains the unlock scheme shown in
Figure 4 of LeBeau suggests the unlock command which directly opens an
application. Ans. 3 (citing LeBeau ¶ 52). With respect to whether LeBeau
requires any additional steps, the Examiner finds claim 52 depends from
independent claim 51 which requires “a multiple lateral press motions” to
determine a command which is consistent with the disclosure of LeBeau,
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

7
suggesting that “the user may unlock the device and go directly to an email
function by simply pressing a button 406 and then moving the press past a
threshold comprising the motion of 404c to 404b back to 404c.” Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion and adopt
them as our own. First, as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 3), the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claims does not preclude additional steps or
removing unnecessary steps from the selection process, as taught or
suggested by the combination of Mouilleseaux, Steiner, and LeBeau. See In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004): “[T]he
PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
during examination.”). Second, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 3), Figure 4
of LeBeau shows one or more command that unlocks a device and goes to a
function as moving the unlock icon 406 to a function icon 404c, which in
combination with the other applied references, teaches or suggests the
subject matter of claim 52. See LeBeau Fig. 4, ¶ 52.
Second Argument
With respect to the combination of the references, Appellant contends
the rejection is based on hindsight and furthermore, LeBeau teaches away
from the present invention. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant points to Figures 3A
and 3B of LeBeau and asserts the fact that the user has to interact with two
elements indicates that “LeBeau clearly teaches away from using a single
button (or icon) for the task.” Appeal Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2–4.
We are unpersuaded. Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence
that the Examiner’s rejection is based on knowledge gleaned only from
Appellant’s disclosure, or based on knowledge which was beyond the level
of ordinary skill in the art at the time. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392,
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

8
1395 (CCPA 1971). The Examiner has identified a motivation for
combining LeBeau with Mouilleseaux and Steiner by relying on paragraph 2
of LeBeau, which explains the desirability of a scheme for receiving a
command to perform a function while the device is being unlocked. As
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 4), contrary to Appellant’s assertion that
the combination is based on hindsight, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have added such an unlock feature to the operation of the multidirectional
button of the Mouilleseaux-Steiner combination, which is a combination of
familiar elements according to known methods with predicable results. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Further, we find
the Examiner has provided a rational underpinning to support the conclusion
of obviousness based on knowledge within the level of ordinary skill in the
art, specifically to provide a user with the additional functionality of sharing
their reaction to video content with others via social media. Final Act. 9;
Ans. 4; see also KSR, 550 U.S. at 417–18.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s teaching away argument.
Teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “We will not read into a reference a teaching away
from a process where no such language exists.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH
& Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2006). Appellant has offered no persuasive evidence that LeBeau
discourages using a single button or the combination with Mouilleseaux and
Steiner, as attorney argument alone is not evidence. See In re Geisler, 116
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

9
of LeBeau’s unlocking scheme (Final Act. 9; Ans. 8–9 (citing LeBeau ¶¶ 2,
52)) with the multidirectional button taught or suggested by the
Mouilleseaux-Steiner combination teaches or suggests the method of claim
52. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.4
Third Argument
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in characterizing the
radial menu items of Mouilleseaux as the recited “multidirectional button”
because menu items “simply cannot be tapped (press and release) to enter a
command for the device,” “require more steps,” and “do not contain a center
choice as defined by the present claim.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant also
argues “Steiner’s center choice is for a different use,” such as “keys in a
keyboard that are clearly only for the use of typing” without disclosing or
suggesting “other uses.” Appeal Br. 10, Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner responds by pointing to Appellant’s disclosure where
the terms “multidirectional button” and “menu” are used as the same item

4 In the Reply Brief, Appellant for the first time argues that the Examiner’s
proposed modification to LeBeau “renders the prior art less satisfactory for
its intended purpose of performing ‘a more complex action that is unlikely to
be performed accidentally.’” Reply Br. 2–3. This argument is entitled to no
consideration because it was not presented for the first time in the opening
brief. Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications S.A., 469 F.3d
978, 989 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argument raised for the first time in the reply
brief that could have been raised in the opening brief is waived); accord Ex
parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473–74 (BPAI 2010) (informative
opinion) (absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required to
address an argument newly presented in the reply brief that could have been
presented in the principal brief on appeal).
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

10
and explains that “the menu 400 of fig. 4 of Mouilleseaux is interpreted as
the multidirectional button” which “performs multiple functions by sliding
cursor associated with input device in multiple directions.” Ans. 6 (citing
¶¶ 121–123 of the published application US 2016/0132119 A1, which
correspond to passages in Spec. pp. 10–11). Additionally, the Examiner
finds the limitations related to the press and release features to enter a
command and the center choice in a multidirectional button is taught or
suggested by the combination of Mouilleseaux and Steiner. Ans. 7–8.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. We
specifically agree with the Examiner’s characterization of the mouse click
and release of Mouilleseaux as the recited user press, which is consistent
with Appellant’s disclosure of selecting “pointer buttons” using a mouse.
Final Act. 5–6 (citing Mouilleseaux Fig. 6, ¶¶ 72–77). The Examiner
properly relies on Steiner as disclosing “a multidirectional button (132 of
fig. 13), wherein one of the plurality of command choices is a center choice
exclusive from the use of opening or closing the multidirectional button (S,
G and K of fig. 13).” Final Act. 7.
Fourth Argument
Appellant argues the radial menus date back before their disclosure in
Mouilleseaux, but the combination of a plurality of commands associated
with a radial menu that function as buttons were not proposed by the
ordinary skill artisan. According to Appellant, the long delay till the time
the present application was filed indicates nonobviousness. Appeal Br. 10,
see also Reply Br. 7–8.
We are unpersuaded that the identified dates support Appellant’s
position with respect to the reason for obviousness of the combination. As
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

11
stated by the Examiner, “[t]he fact that no one has gotten a patent on this
specific combination does not necessarily mean that it is not obvious – it
merely means the no one has gotten a patent on this combination.” Ans. 9.
We also agree with the Examiner that adding the center button of Steiner
would “improve input interface by providing an additional choice option
categorized as a central input (Steiner [0093]) and which would have been
easy to use [0019].” Ans. 9.
Fifth Argument
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s stated reason for combining
the applied references is conclusory. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant asserts “the
Examiner’s reasoning for the combination was given for an independent
claim for which the present claim is no longer dependent” and therefore
“[t]he Examiner has not provided the required articulated reasoning for his
multiple combinations.” Id.
As discussed above, the Examiner has provided sufficient reasoning
for combining Mouilleseaux and Steiner by relying on specific portions of
Steiner. Final Act. 7 (citing Steiner ¶¶ 18–24). The Examiner further
provided such reasoning for combining Mouilleseaux and Steiner with
LeBeau by pointing to specific portions of LeBeau. Final Act. 9 (citing
LeBeau ¶ 2). See In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“[T]he test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”). We are cognizant that “there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.” KSR, 550 U. S. at 418 (quoting In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). Such reasoning can be based on
Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

12
interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550
U.S. at 417–18. In the present case, the Examiner found that the proposed
combination would have resulted in improved input interface. Final Act. 7.
We find this articulated rationale to be sufficient to justify this combination.
In other words, we find that the proposed substitution would merely require
the ordinarily skilled artisan to appreciate that including a center choice
would improve the user interaction with the multidirectional button or key.
Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Mouilleseaux and Steiner with LeBeau teaches or suggests the subject
matter of claim 52. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 51–57.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
51, 57 102(a) Temple 51, 57
51, 54–56 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner 51, 54–56

52, 53 103(a) Mouilleseaux, Steiner,
LeBeau
52, 53
Overall
Outcome

51–57

Appeal 2018-005668
Application 14/539,977

13
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED